I've found this text to be one of the more useful hold-overs from my MEd program. I appreciate the author's attempt at humor with what can be a difficult subject.

In education, we are bombarded with all sorts of "research-based" claims. Anyone selling anything, from ideas to strategies to textbooks, will toss that label out. At the same time, we're encouraged to design and implement our own action research projects. Teachers need a research knowledge base and this book has been a powerful resource in helping me to understand the language and process of research.

From the intro to Chapter 1: ". . . all the stuff you think you already know, and probably should already know, but most likely don't know as well as you think you do." ( )

Avoid this title if at all possible. The author set out to make a boring topic amusing, and failed completely. But it's not boring material that's the real problem here; the problem is that the author comes off as a royal jerk.

Consider this passage from page 57:

"Inadequate Preoperational Explication of Constructs. Okay, this is a fairly daunting phrase, but don't panic. Breathe in. Breathe out. Let's decipher this phrase one part at a time. It isn't nearly as complicated as it sounds. You know what 'inadequate' means, don't you? (If you don't, I'd say you're pretty inadequate!)"

Ye gods! Quit treating me like a child, you pompous twit! For that matter - don't treat a child like that either! They know exactly when they're being treated with no respect, and so do I.

The tone was probably well-intentioned. But frankly, it makes me too angry to care about whether it was meant well or not. It's extremely difficult to learn anything from a book whose author keeps interrupting himself to condescend to me. This one's getting sold back to the shop the instant I don't need it for class any more.

And I may include a note of sympathy to its next owner. ( )